Imported-splat objects status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a GET method and 'status' semantics, reinforcing non-destructive behavior. It does not describe what statuses are returned, pagination, or behavior when no imported objects exist; with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with no filler, and the endpoint is a useful anchor. The status semantics are front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple one-param read-only status query, and the annotation covers side-effect safety. It is not fully complete because it omits expected output/status values and the relationship to scene_imported_objects_run, which would help an agent know when data is available.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single scan_id parameter has no schema description and the description never names it. The phrase 'for an imported splat' gives enough context to infer that scan_id selects the imported splat, but explicit parameter documentation is missing. Given only one parameter, this is minimally adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States that it reports the status of geometry-derived objects for an imported splat and identifies the GET endpoint. This is distinguishable from scene_imported_objects_run by status-vs-run, though it does not explicitly name that sibling. The phrase 'geometry-derived objects' is slightly vague but acceptable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus scene_imported_objects_run or scene_list_objects. The description implies a read-only status check but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the relationship to the run tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.